(The following two edits should be applied to my review [prev])

--Paragr. 5, point (1.), parenthetical: "century" should be altered to "millenium" both times [I certainly wrote this review too late at night]

--Paragr. 6, last sentence: "references to ... Greek culture is" should be altered to "references to ... Greek culture are"

This book certainly does represent an interesting addition into the field of the history of the Biblical text and religion. Cross does raise some issues that deserve consideration (see below). He is certainly an expert in the field of what is called "lower (or better, textual) criticism," in that he and his fellow researchers are eminently meticulous with studying and analyzing the scrolls found from Qumran.

It is evident, however, that when once Cross steps over the bounds of his actual scholarship and credentials, into the arena of Ancient Near Eastern history and its bearings on the Hebrew religion and Bible, he commits some standard errors of naivete, common to many an O.T. scholar today.

He advocates not the antiquated (and incredibly errant on methodological grounds), so-called "Documentary Hypothesis," but rather, the newer "etiological tradition" school of thought, along the lines of several mid-20th century scholars -- Noth (and Alt? along with several earlier Norwegian scholars) come(s) to mind, particularly.

His assumptions (not scientific conclusions) that the Pentateuchal text comes from "various traditions" that were compiled long after historical events they "attempt (sic) to describe" are certainly based on faulty linguistic analyses, and he evidently assumes that (a) because different textual traditions existed in Palestine in the last 4/5 centuries BC (b) therefore this indicates that oral traditions (laden with exaggerations and embellishments, no doubt) were eventually compiled into the various textual traditions, each of which bore the unique marks of its oral-traditio-predecessor.

Among issues that Cross glosses over, whether out of carelessness or out of deliberate refusal to acknowledge (several) other eminent scholars (some with far weightier credentials than himself), are the questions of: (1.) legal/treaty forms (1st century vs. 2nd century BC--several large sections of the Pentateuch correspond almost precisely with the latter, not the former); (2.) the question of "late" words being introduced into a complete Pentateuchal text by later scribes (which would tend to corroborate the results obtained by Mendenhall's, Kitchen's, formgeschichte cited above); (3.) the extensive studies showing that Hebrew literature was, in fact, *not* very closely related to the surrounding Canaanite literature/tradition at all (e.g., Heidel's findings RE: the unimpressive factual correlations between Gilgamesh and the OT).

Moreover, his assertion that "Mesopotamian literature was orally circulated, generally, before being written," and that this "corroborates the idea that the Hebrews followed the same methods in compiling the OT," is very fragile, resting on wholly erroneous assumptions, all of which directly contradict the actual conclusions of specialists in Ancient Oriental history--namely, that Mesopotamian cultures (and Egyptian, as well) most often practiced the "oral dissemination" (NOT transmission) of (already) *written* documents (as A. L. Oppenheim has long since indicated, along with several others). Cross's references to ancient Greek culture is wholly superfluous, affording, as any specialist in Ancient Oriental studies would affirm, no substantiation of his theories and indicating his lack of expertise in the Ancient Near East.

Thus, although Cross's work here represents something that should certainly be studied (and purchased) by both advocates of his theory AND by opponents, it certainly should be treated with a healthy skepticism, and by no means should it be accepted as an authoritative work, because of its simplistic, superficial treatment of issues which Cross has no mastery over. Old Testament history teachers and Biblical teachers should especially approach the work with caution, and refrain from giving it to students as an "authoritative text," per se. Rather, it would be wise to merely suggest it for further reading, or to select readings from it and leave it open to criticism from the students to enhance their critical-analysis abilities--esp. seeing as to how the text will likely be out of date in ten, twenty, or thirty years, as Biblical criticism proceeds towards more scientifically and logically sound methodologies.

This book is a worthy and very interesting successor to "Canaanite Myth And Hebrew Epic", exploring a number of issues relating to the history of Israel that were not addressed in the earlier work. Essays cover the relation of kinship to covenant, traditional narrative, the dubious fortunes of Reuben, the old gods of the ancient near east, OT descriptions of the tabernacle tent and temple in context, highly technical essays on Hebrew verse, two essays on the post-exilic restoration with an emphasis on the rift between Samaria and Jerusalem, two essays on the fixation and stabilization of the canonical text, and kind of an afterthought essay on pottery sherds and alphabets.

For me, the most interesting articles were the 'olden gods' essay, which places a number of themes present in the Bible firmly in the context of Canaanite mythology, and the the Samaria essay, which brings a lot of insight to the "Samaritan Problem". Just about as compelling are the essays dealing with the canonization of the Biblical texts, which brings the Dead Sea Scrolls and other contemporary evidence in to clarify the conerns and procedures. The most difficult and arcane (and beyond my interest) were the essays dealing with Hebrew verse.

My reservations stem from what seem to me to be omissions in the argument. Cross regularly makes the statement "there is no reason to doubt" one thing or another which is by no means proven, either in this work or any other that I know of, regarding practices and institutions of the "tribal league" and the "empire". He alludes to the existence of tribal leagues and their distinct religious forms from the Bronze Age to the modern era without much discussion of evidence. He also attests that at Ugarit patriarchal and specifically urban forms co-existed. This is interesting and I would like to know more about it. If the tribal and urban practices mingled throughout history, this does not give us "no reason to doubt" the historical accuracy of a Biblical account in which patriarchal religion and politics totally gives way to some national type of religion, nor does it help secure the dating of patriarchal narratives, or the dating of the conversion to Yahwism of Canaanite mythic themes. Cross's assertion of an orally transmitted prose epic seems unlikely, and no evidence is presented here to change my mind.

My reservations do not decrease the value of this book, however. In fact, they increase it, because of the issues raised. Overall, a must read.

Roger Beckwith is clearly a man with a vast knowledge of his subject. I cannot pretend to match him or work out where he has gone wrong. However, he has clearly gone wrong somewhere. The purpose of this book is to prove that the contents of the Old Testament were definitively decided by the Maccabees in about 164BC, and he does this to his own satisfaction. However, there is abundant evidence that there were still disputes about some books of the Old Testament 250 years later. That is not to say that the status of most books (whether they were to be included or excluded) was unclear in 164BC; that has been accepted by Bible scholars for decades, and Beckwith did not need to spend hundreds of densely argued pages to prove it again. However, there was still a grey area, for example regarding the Song of Songs, that would take centuries to resolve. As a result, it is difficult to place much trust in anything that Beckwith says that I cannot confirm from my own knowledge. This is a great pity, because there is some valuable information here.

A major pillar of Protestant theology is that the Bible is sufficient in itself with no need for tradition. This was a reaction to the Roman Catholic doctrine that the teachings of the Church are as important as the Bible. Catholics point out an obvious problem with the Protestant position: the list of books, or canon, is itself a tradition, and indeed for the Old Testament the Protestant and Catholic canons differ. Beckwith seeks to obviate that problem by arguing that the Old Testament canon was firmly fixed before the time of Jesus in a form identical to the current Protestant one, that Jesus endorsed this canon and therefore it has divine sanction. This book is thus polemical. Beckwith marshals a vast amount of evidence, and this gives the book some value, but he is biased and selective. Further, whenever he comes to a difficulty that he cannot overcome, he blithely dismisses it. For example, faced with the substantial additional material in the Catholic versions of Esther and Daniel compared with the Protestant ones, he does not attempt to show that the canon consisted of the Protestant versions of these books. Instead, he calls this a problem of textual criticism rather than canon. Textual criticism deals with odd differences of words, maybe the occasional whole verse added or omitted, but never with the addition of several extra chapters! Beckwith's other fault is that he has long digressions on matters of at best marginal relevance. In summary, you can admire the erudition in this book, but treat everything it says with great caution unless you can check it.

Roger Beckwith has produced a scholarly work which is surely recognized as such in the field of Old Testament study. He has systematically taken the issues, by which the Old Testament Canon must be recognized, and explained them carefully and precisely. The detail in which Beckwith labored is immense. In fact, the only negative thing this reviewer would say is that, to a layman, this work would be very difficult to read without a driving passion to understand the depth of study Beckwith has undergone. Still, the book is not intended to be devotional, but rather, intellectual. Like a dictionary, lexicon, or encyclopedia is not intended to edify, but to clarify, so Beckwith's attention to detail serves as a helpful explanation to a difficult topic. Beckwith divides the book into eight chapters with an introduction and conclusion. Chapter 1 explains the "witnesses" (the early sources of evidence) to the canon. The way that canon was regarded in history past plays an integral role in the establishment of the canon. Tradition seems to be so lightly regarded these days in evangelical camps (to our detriment), and yet what a significant role it played in determining the extent of the canon! As the title to the book suggests, the canon of the Old Testament for the New Testament church takes very heavily into consideration what Jesus and the New Testament writers said about the Old Testament canon. The witnesses that were early enough to offer valid evidence on the canon are listed and explained so that the reader will be familiar with the witnesses as the following chapters implement their contributions. The schools of thought represented by the witnesses, the Pharisees, the Sadducees and the Essenes, are also explained. The second chapter established the fact that the canon did indeed already exist by the beginning of the Christian era. Much of this fact is established in that many of the early witnesses declared references to the Old Testament by using a formula before the quotation such as, "It is written", as well simply quoting the book by name. Beckwith's purpose is to show that a nucleus of books existed (hence, a canon), in archive form, and they were housed in the temple. A book would not have been housed in the temple if it were not considered Scripture by the Jews. Chapter 3 is short and simple and describes the various titles of the canon. Each of the 28 titles of the Old Testament canon listed has a endnote attached, making the endnotes to chapter 3 as long as the chapter itself! The point of such evidence is that the individual books had become a collection sufficient enough to warrant various titles to the group (i.e. canon) as whole. The fourth chapter clearly demonstrates that there were three parts to the structure of the canon: The Law, the Prophets and the Hagiographa; this is a method of arranging the various books which is evidenced from many sources outside the canon itself. The earliest evidence is from the prologue to the book "Ecclesiasticus" which specifically mentions three times the three parts of the canon. Jesus Himself, an extremely relevant witness for the Christian, states in Luke 24:44 the three sections of the Old Testament as "the Law of Moses and the Prophets and Psalms . . .". "Psalms" is shown to mean the Hagiographa. Judas Maccabaeus and his associates, in 164 BC, compiled a list of the Prophets and Hagiographa at least 250 years prior to the generally assumed date of the closing of the canon (AD 90, at the Synod of Jamnia). Beckwith defends the date of the recognition of the canon very well in this chapter, and it is one of the best-defended positions he takes in the book. The fifth chapter defines the order of the Old Testament books as grouped in the canon. The purpose for defending that there was an established order-even though that order was different for different people-implies that the books in that order, however arranged, were recognized as canonical and that the canon was closed at the time of its ordering. Chapter 6 proves that the number of the canonical books was always assumed to be 22 or 24. The books would be the same in both numberings; they would simply be grouped differently. The number 22 was favored by the Jews because it matched the number of letters in their Hebrew alphabet. Once again, the necessity to show that there was an agreed on number shows that the identity of such numbered books was known, and these books were, therefore, considered Scripture. Chapter 7 discusses the books in the Old Testament that were considered canonical. There were really only five books included in the canon that were ever disputed with any real fervor. These were: Ezekiel, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, and Esther. The secular motifs in these books were the leading cause of concern to some scholars as well as the apparent contradictions with other canonical books that were not disputed. The disputes themselves imply that the books in question were considered canonical, because contradictions in un-inspired texts would have been assumed, and therefore, non-existent. The final chapter includes the reasons the non-canonical books were excluded from the canon. The books in question from the Pseudepigrapha and Apocrypha could not be included in the canon, for one reason, because their date is much later than the previously attested date of the closing of the canon recognized by Judas Maccabaeus in 164 BC. The Pharisees, the Sadducees and the Essenes all recognized a closed canon and generally saw that prophecy had ceased. After his conclusion, Beckwith gives several appendixes for further study including charts which summarize visually what would take pages to explain in prose. I would enjoy seeing such a scholarly work such as this made available on layman's level so that what I gained by labor might be attained for the layman at leisure.

This book is an excellent example of why food is not the only thing that should be marked with "sell by" dates. In 1983 when this book was written, the New Code of Canon Law of 1983 had just been promulgated. There was no background of interpretation of it. The author here had a clear road in that he could not be faulted for misinterpretation since no one yet knew what the authentic interpretation would be. The author is not a canon lawyer. He gives a civil attorney's perspective on Catholic Church annulments and that is very much like mixing apples and elephants. As both a civil and canon lawyer, I find his dicussion of the internal forum to be dangerous. He has no degree in theology and that would be a minimum for attempting to enter into that discussion at this level of assumed authority. He knows not of what he speaks. If you are looking for a book that will help you now through an annulment process, this is not the book for you to read. It can give you a historical perspective or thought on the process, but it is not what it entitles , a "step-by-step guide". This book should be taken off the shelves immediately.

This is an excellent basic intorduction to the questions about the annulment process of the Roman Catholic Church. It touches all the bases in simple straight forward language. I think it should be read before reading any other material on the subject, some of which are a might too technical for the layperson.

No concrete evidence of canonization. Mostly midrashic tales.

One of the great problems in studies of the Old Testament is knowing when a particular book was accepted as canonical. Indeed, there is disagreement about the meaning of the word "canonical"; I take it to mean divinely inspired and fitted to be treated as part of scripture. A related problem is when the canon was closed, so that no further books could be added and, equally, none could be removed. There is a vast store of evidence on these questions in the Rabbinic writings from 1300 to 1900 years ago. However, the information is very difficult for the non-initiated reader to understand. Sid Leiman, a master in his field, has extracted all the relevant evidence and provides a thorough explanation. The book is not easy going, and may require two or three readings before you can grasp all of its rich store of information, but do persevere if you are interested in this subject.

Brannon wheeler uses a comparative method to establish a theory that arguies that Hanafi lawyers in particular, and islamic jurists in general use closed circle trasmission of tradition (practices) just like divination practiced by tribes in Australia, to establish their authority and maintain role in society. The book may be looked at as a fresh take on the subject but the minimal reliance on primary sources and shaky grasp of technical terms and concepts pertaining to Islamic law canceled off any benefit that might have been bestowed by this comparative study. The ample errors in spelling and translaterations of the few Arabic words he used clearly diminished the value of the work and made it appear to look like a hasty rushed project whose authors and publishers paid litle attention, if any, to the content and the presentation.

The title of the book seem to be vesting some legal authority to a work that is more of a Comparative Religion publication than a book about Islamic Law. Wheeler, in his attempt to establish a theory on the interpretive methods of Islamic jurists (especially Hanafi, though he cover Maliki, Hanbali and Shafi'i)finds himself establishing a peculiar link between the practices of Islamic Lawyers and divination practices by some primitive tribes in the Australian Islands! Wheeler seems to adopt Emile Durkheim's method in the Study of Religions but he fails badly in establishing a logical argument. His use of Arabic references and the number of mistakes in translaterations show a loose handle on technical terms and a weak background in the field of Islamic law. Clearly he is unaware of the the debate in the field or simply incapable of presenting a legal coherent legal discourse. May be the book is better served if advertised as a study in the ritual aspects of Islamic law, rather than a book about or on Islamic Law! The book wiLL not satisfy the curiosity of students of Islamic Law and will NOT satisfy the standard set by scholars of Islamic jurisprudence in particular, and legal scholars in general. The book may be only taken seriously as a case in methodology in the discipline of comparative religion NO MORE NO LESS!

Surely one cannot degrade the value of ideas on the basis of spelling errors. Anyone who does so would seem to be missing the forest for all the trees. At the heart of this book (which is the part that matters) is an insightfull and usefull theory about the role of texts in Islamic legal traditions, and that is not likely to be negated simply on the basis of concerns over how it was written

This book is a theologically oriented study of some issues in current Roman Canon Law. It is an English translation of Gerosa's German edition. Unfortunately, both the translation and the copy editing leave a great deal to be desired. German grammar and word order are frequently apparent, over- complicating sentences that are already long and involved. Split infinitives abound, and there is frequent confusion between different parts of speech. Some non-existent words are used, and there are one or two consistent spelling mistakes. The following two sentences provide eloquent illustrations of these problems:

From page 77: "And thus it is possible only within a juridical system in which the criterion that renders a norm binding that it is not so much the will of the legislator or an exclusively formal value, so much as that of the certainty of law in the state juridical systems, but rather it is the unity or communion which is the essential content of the ecclesial experience itself."

From page 158: "These being the essential elements of the normative of the Code relative to the remission of a canonical sanction it is not difficult to intuit the wholly particular nature of the same and above all of excommunication, for ever the sanction-type of the Church."

The text of this book reads like a first draft rather than a final translation, and in my opinion it is nowhere near ready for publication. I think it needs a complete redraft. This is unfortunate, because Gerosa has several interesting things to say. It's just a shame that so much of his argument is obscured by the translation.

This unfortunately seems to be the only English edition of this classic that is available. "Unfortunately", because the translator has indulged in putting sections of the text into a horrible singsong archaic rhyme form. Here's a random selection: "How eluding and vague/ All types including!/How vague and eluding,/All beings including!/How deep and how obscure./ It harbors the spirit pure,/Whose truth is ever sure,/ Whose faith abides for aye/ From of yore until to-day." If you can tolerate this, there are some stunning thoughts here - but that's a big if.

I have always regarded Pachelbel's Canon in D as one of the greatest pieces of music ever written, but this piano arrangement is simply plain and uninteresting. The chords and melodies are weak and empty compared to the celestrial richness of the original. The essense of the song is lost, and the main theme has been dramatically changed.With the exception of the first page, most of the arrangement does not even resemble the original. If you want an accurate and artistic recreation of the masterpiece, don't bother with this mediocre arrangement.

What is needed in a book of this type is a lot of detailed information on variations of settings and examples of what effect on the pictures changing the multiple different settings would have. This would take a lot of the trial and error out of working with a complicated new camera and shorten and simplify the learning curve by detailed suggestions of settings in various situations. Unfortunately, this book fails to do this and mostly comes across as an expanded version of the owner's manual. There is very little detailed information given on the various settings and even the pictures and examples given do not have details of what settings were used. I found the book to be mildly helpful in familiarizing me with various settings and options, but poorly helpful in giving suggestions or examples to get me off to a fast start. I am left with learning by trial and error, something a book like this should help you to avoid.

The book serves as a minor re-introduction to photography. I minored in photography in college, but have let the hobby slip since losing my equipment many years ago. I got a digital camera some years ago, and was frustrated by the lack of control over the image. I finally moved back into SLRs by purchasing a D60 (which I love.)

This book was a brief re-introduction to basic settings, but shows no real comparative results between the various settings, as a previous reviewer had already mentioned. There is SOME usefull information in this book, but none of it unique to this particular camera. General information about aperture and speed control can be gotten from better general books. Don't bother buying this one.

I agree wholeheartedly that the study and examination of the Old Testament and its theology is vitally important to the Christian today. I also believe that it is both much maligned and ignored by the majority of Christians as the author states. I believe this is due to our ignorance and arrogance. It appears that most Christians, especially in this country, believe that we have become the chosen people - the favored nation - rather than Israel as shown in the Word. This being said, I did not enjoy this book for a variety of reasons. First, I found the language to be difficult to follow (which rarely happens to me) possibly due to being translated from German. Second, since the book was written based upon essays or lectures from the author, I found it to be rather disjointed which also made it more difficult to follow the thought process. Lastly, instead of focusing upon the actual theology of the Old Testament, the author devotes much - or most - of his efforts in cataloging various different methods of interpretation of the Old Testament.